Morrison’s Space: A DeafBlind Activist

A DeafBlind Perspective on Access, Injustice, and the Work Still Left Undone

May 20, 2026

By Morrison

Global Accessibility Awareness Day is meant to highlight the importance of digital inclusion, yet for the DeafBlind community this also exposes how deeply society continues to misunderstand what accessibility actually requires. While many celebrate progress, we are still confronting barriers that should have been eliminated decades ago. Access to qualified DeafBlind interpreters, not simply ASL interpreters, remains inconsistent and often unavailable, despite the fact that tactile language, Protactile communication, and DeafBlind cultural fluency are essential for equitable access. CoNavigators/Support Service Providers (CN/SSPs) services, which provide access to environmental information, navigation support, and critical access to the world around us, continue to be underfunded, undervalued, and misunderstood. These are the infrastructure of autonomy.

Transportation systems still operate as if DeafBlind people do not exist. Public transit relies heavily on visual and auditory cues, leaving us without reliable ways to navigate safely. Many crosswalks lack Accessible Pedestrian Signals, emergency alerts are not consistently delivered in accessible formats, and travel time for disabled people is often two to four times longer than for nondisabled travelers. Yet we are still expected to arrive on time in a world designed around nondisabled bodies. This is not a matter of inconvenience, it is structural ableism embedded into the very design of public life.

Even the most routine tasks require workarounds that nondisabled people never have to think about. Grocery stores rarely provide tactile labeling, leaving us to guess at food items and the prices, medications, and household products. Restaurants dim their lights for “ambiance,” creating environments where low‑vision diners cannot read menus, navigate safely, or participate fully without resorting to phone flashlights, magnification apps, or color inversion. On that note, our phones have apps and websites that restrict font sizes, lack contrast, and force us to rely on device‑level accessibility features just to read/access basic information. These extra steps are not minor; they are daily reminders that accessibility is still treated as an afterthought and we pay the price for that.

Digital spaces, even on GAAD, continue to exclude us. Social media posts celebrating accessibility often lack image descriptions, video descriptions, or transcripts. Alt text is treated as the end goal, even though it only benefits those with screen readers or braille displays. Online shopping remains inaccessible, not only because of poor website design but also because companies insist on using “cute” or abstract color names, wine, snowflake, wildflower, chrome – instead of clear, literal descriptions. This excludes people who are blind, low‑vision, DeafBlind, or colorblind, and it reinforces the assumption that everyone shares the same visual frame of reference.

Technology access itself is inequitable. Many DeafBlind people lack reliable internet, accessible devices, or training designed for tactile learners. Innovation continues to move forward (and quickly too!) without us, widening the gap between what is possible and what is actually accessible. The digital divide is not just about technology, it is about who society chooses to include and to their comfort. 

Thirty‑six years after the ADA, we are still treated as if disability fits neatly into separate boxes: Deaf, Blind, mobility‑disabled, neurodivergent. DeafBlind people do not fit into any single category, and the system punishes us for it. Laws are written without our input, access standards are built around sighted and hearing norms, and society continues to rely on a 1990 framework that never reflected the diversity of disabled experiences. We are expected to adapt to systems that were never designed for us, rather than those systems evolving to meet the needs of the communities they claim to serve. Our community is so diverse that the “box method” – these checkboxes have never worked (but here we are in 2026, still forced to use this system). 

On GAAD, the message from the DeafBlind community is clear: accessibility is not a favor, a trend, or a marketing theme. It is a right. And until DeafBlind people are centered, not added as an afterthought, GAAD will remain less a celebration and more a reminder of how much work remains. True accessibility requires moving beyond checkboxes, beyond the ADA’s outdated assumptions, and beyond the idea that one size fits all. It requires designing with us, not for us, and recognizing that justice begins when access, our space is built into the foundation rather than patched on at the end like a band-aid.